This discussion is getting a little hard to keep track of. Moving backwards:

Darren,

I wouldn't mind seeing deaths per capita for guns and other weapons. Then how about comparing it to DUI manslaughter and maybe various accidents.

Me too.

Libra,

I for one never said that the degree of gun violence in the U.S. is attributable to the number of people owning guns. I also never said that fewer guns would result in less crime, or that crime is somehow caused by guns. And the contents of that link is nothing new to me.

Boghog,

I believe the numbers of people who lock there doors in Canada is also greatly reduced in comparison to the U.S. It isn't about how many guns are out there, its about who owns them, and why.

Back to Libra,

Case in point: Cap, do you hunt? Have you ever hunted? IF not, how can you claim what does and doesnt have hunting purposes? Also, many things were invented with the military in mind.....does that mean they are only military in nature? What about cell phones, satellite tech, prosthetic medicine, blood transfusions, reconstructive surgery?

I don't hunt. I do know hand guns were not designed for hunting. Once again, I can use a baseball bat to hit a baseball, or hammer a nail, or dig post holes, but its only made to do one of those things. As for your military reference . . . either you truly don't understand my point, or you're intentionally trying to distract from it. GUNS ARE MADE TO SHOOT THINGS. THAT IS THERE JOB. No one decides to buy a gun to do there gardening. They buy a gun because they want the ability to SHOOT THINGS. This makes a gun a weapon, and it should therefore be more regulated for things that aren't MADE TO SHOOT THINGS.

Anon,

I have moved to a more libertarian aproach to the matter: Hey! you want to have one, good if it works for you, and if you are so irresponsible to have one of your kids kill himself or someone else with it, I hope you remain the rest of your sorry days in jail.

Except, where is the law that says if your child kills someone with your gun, YOU go to jail? I'd love to see it, but so far . . .

Libra,

I dont think it is really a corelation. After all, it is hot in the South all the time, and there are more guns. THere should be tons of shootings every summer.

Actually, it isn't something to be dismissed. Its hot in the South all the time, precisely. People are used to it. The ridiculous heat wave here in NY last summer ABSOLUTELY made people crazy, and subsequently had an effect on crime rates. Its happened before, and will probably happen again.

Calling people idiots is not any way to have a discussion.

But calling someone a hippy liberal is?

oK, I think I answered this farther down. A justified shooting is hard to prove in court. However, I think I would rather be in court than dead. And you are taking an extremist viewpoint here. Many thousands of people in this nation have concealed carry permits, and many hundreds of thousands of police officers carry guns everywhere, every day. Yet there are not mass killings over fender benders, are there?

What about the kid who just got shot for walking on his neighbor's lawn? Someone that nuts should never had owned a gun in the first place. Either A)the kid deserved to die B)he's collateral damage, and his life is not worth any kind of reevaluation of gun law, or C)gun laws aren't sufficient, because they should have been able to prevent this.

If the guy who'd shot that kid had been an elderly driver, his family, neighbors, etc could have called the DMV and had him brought in for mandatory road testing and possible loss of license. What recourse did his neighbors have for him being crazy and a gun owner? Who could they call to demand his sanity and gun skills be imediately evaluated?

You do not have a Constitutional right to a car, and the Government can control them any way they like. You do however have a Constitutional right to own a gun, and there are restrictions on government control.

This is a faulty comparison, as you're dealing with states rights vs federal rights. Anything NOT afforded in the Constitution falls on the rights of the states, and therefore cars are regulated by the state. Guns ARE in the Constitution, and therefore fall into the regulatory hands of the federal government. Therefore, the degree of control isn't comparable. State GOVERNMENTS control cars, federal GOVERNMENT controls guns. Both are under GOVERNMENT control. *

Ok, to address this. I agree that all citizens should be trained in the use of arms. However, in the first paragraph you put too many restrictions on that. Not everyone can take the subway down to the local militia training center.

They aren't my restrictions. The militia part is in the Constitution. And shouldn't something as potentially dangerous as a gun require a certain degree of responsibility? Should we hand them out at birth, or should someone be of a certain age before they can own one? Should we sell them with dirty water hot dogs, or should vendors be required to fit certain standards? Can a repeat felon own a gun as easily as a nun, or should there be rules for that?

Also, you have not taken into account that a "one size fits all" solution will not work for guns. How can a person on the Upper East Side of Manhatten tell a person who lives in the wilds of Montana that they cannot own a gun without a strict licensing process?

When the guns easily purchased in Montana end up illegally on the streets of NY, killing cops, they should have a much easier time restricting them. In fact, this seems a little discriminatory against people in Montana. Why are they somehow incapable of meeting the same standards as a NYer? Is intelligence and capacity for personal responsibility related to net income? Is it geographic?

The simple fact is that when I have tried to answer you, your only response is derision and accusations of paranoia.

Actually, that's not any kind of fact. The points you chose to ignore generally made no kind of implications about person whatsoever. Apparantly, you're using comments I made in other posts as an excuse to ignore separate content. Whatever.

*edit: actually, both federal and state gov'ts control guns. Personally, I think it should be entirely federal, but it isn't.

True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill

darren996 wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing deaths per capita for guns and other weapons. Then how about comparing it to DUI manslaughter and maybe various accidents.

The Department of Justice is a good place to go, their website has LOTS of statistics.

But Cap doesnt want us comparing cars to guns. Evidently, it is not the same if a drunk driver kills someone as if someone shoots and kills a rapist.

Excuse me? This is just complete bullshit. I've never even MENTIONED drunk driving. Nor have I said anything about shooting a rapist. We're done. I'm no longer continuing this discussion with you. You've proven to me that you have no interest in any kind of honest debate. You may feel justified in claiming I've said things I haven't, believe things I don't, or support things I don't, but that's called LYING. And I don't discuss things with liars.

True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill

Still the problem of high number firearm related deaths in the US remains. IMHO something is wrong with guns in the US and unless the number goes down I don't see the people for regulation going away. To me that is the core of the issue, otherwise there wouldn't be ground for disagreement.

Capellini wrote:

anon1mat0 wrote:I have moved to a more libertarian aproach to the matter: Hey! you want to have one, good if it works for you, and if you are so irresponsible to have one of your kids kill himself or someone else with it, I hope you remain the rest of your sorry days in jail.

Except, where is the law that says if your child kills someone with your gun, YOU go to jail? I'd love to see it, but so far . . .

Which is one of the points I've been wanting to make.

NicolÃ¡s
_________________
Violence is the diplomacy of the incompetent.Hari SeldonFrom Isaac Asimov's Foundation series

I'm not sure I completely trust a web-site for a lawyer who's represented the NRA and is, apparently, a gun rights advocate to be an unbiased source of information, but using the data from the link you provided:

So, it looks like the two countries have, overall, similar firearm homicide rates.

However, the article doesn't mention the effects of other factors on Switzerland's crime rate, such as:
- level of policing: regardless of how well-armed the populace is, more cops generally mean less crime
- income factors: I believe that the proportion of needy in the population of Switzerland is very, very low in relation to the world in general, or the other countries used for comparison (i.e. Canada and the US).

Also, it should be noted that if you compare only Ontario, which is closer to Switzerland in overall size and urban/rural mix, the firearm-related homicide rate is 0.45, or 22% lower than Switzerland.

Libra, your article mentioned that Switzerland was going to implement stricter gun laws; do you have any stats on what effect that had on their crime rates? I think that the before/after would be the fairest comparison.

I wouldn't mind seeing deaths per capita for guns and other weapons. Then how about comparing it to DUI manslaughter and maybe various accidents.

Me too.

Libra,

I for one never said that the degree of gun violence in the U.S. is attributable to the number of people owning guns. I also never said that fewer guns would result in less crime, or that crime is somehow caused by guns. And the contents of that link is nothing new to me.

Boghog,

I believe the numbers of people who lock there doors in Canada is also greatly reduced in comparison to the U.S. It isn't about how many guns are out there, its about who owns them, and why.

Back to Libra,

Case in point: Cap, do you hunt? Have you ever hunted? IF not, how can you claim what does and doesnt have hunting purposes? Also, many things were invented with the military in mind.....does that mean they are only military in nature? What about cell phones, satellite tech, prosthetic medicine, blood transfusions, reconstructive surgery?

I don't hunt. I do know hand guns were not designed for hunting. Once again, I can use a baseball bat to hit a baseball, or hammer a nail, or dig post holes, but its only made to do one of those things. As for your military reference . . . either you truly don't understand my point, or you're intentionally trying to distract from it. GUNS ARE MADE TO SHOOT THINGS. THAT IS THERE JOB. No one decides to buy a gun to do there gardening. They buy a gun because they want the ability to SHOOT THINGS. This makes a gun a weapon, and it should therefore be more regulated for things that aren't MADE TO SHOOT THINGS.

Ok, here is my answer to that: Guns are made to shoot things. But there are many legal, legitimate uses for guns. And there are more killings committed with perfectly legal objects than with guns. Yet guns are "easy targets" because you can marginalize gun owners. After all, we are just drunk white trash with paranoia issues, or crazy old people, right? Wrong. Gun owners only have that in common. Gun ownership. And by hyper regulating guns, all you are doing is decreasing the ability for PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG TO PARTICIPATE IN A LEGAL ACTIVITY and increasing the safety for criminals. After all, 80% of guns used in crime are acquired illegally......Anon,

I have moved to a more libertarian aproach to the matter: Hey! you want to have one, good if it works for you, and if you are so irresponsible to have one of your kids kill himself or someone else with it, I hope you remain the rest of your sorry days in jail.

Except, where is the law that says if your child kills someone with your gun, YOU go to jail? I'd love to see it, but so far . . .

Libra,

I dont think it is really a corelation. After all, it is hot in the South all the time, and there are more guns. THere should be tons of shootings every summer.

Actually, it isn't something to be dismissed. Its hot in the South all the time, precisely. People are used to it. The ridiculous heat wave here in NY last summer ABSOLUTELY made people crazy, and subsequently had an effect on crime rates. Its happened before, and will probably happen again.

So this is an excuse? Because it got hot in New Yawk, the murderous rampage is ok? Sounds like apologetics to me.

Calling people idiots is not any way to have a discussion.

But calling someone a hippy liberal is?Touche.

oK, I think I answered this farther down. A justified shooting is hard to prove in court. However, I think I would rather be in court than dead. And you are taking an extremist viewpoint here. Many thousands of people in this nation have concealed carry permits, and many hundreds of thousands of police officers carry guns everywhere, every day. Yet there are not mass killings over fender benders, are there?

What about the kid who just got shot for walking on his neighbor's lawn? Someone that nuts should never had owned a gun in the first place. Either A)the kid deserved to die B)he's collateral damage, and his life is not worth any kind of reevaluation of gun law, or C)gun laws aren't sufficient, because they should have been able to prevent this.

Or D, the gun laws are sufficient, and this is just a freak accident. Or E, any other number of scenarios. We can what if this to death, but it wont solve a damn thing. Yes, it is a tragedy, just as Columbine was. But getting rid of all legal guns will not save any lives.

If the guy who'd shot that kid had been an elderly driver, his family, neighbors, etc could have called the DMV and had him brought in for mandatory road testing and possible loss of license. What recourse did his neighbors have for him being crazy and a gun owner? Who could they call to demand his sanity and gun skills be imediately evaluated?

You do not have a Constitutional right to a car, and the Government can control them any way they like. You do however have a Constitutional right to own a gun, and there are restrictions on government control.

This is a faulty comparison, as you're dealing with states rights vs federal rights. Anything NOT afforded in the Constitution falls on the rights of the states, and therefore cars are regulated by the state. Guns ARE in the Constitution, and therefore fall into the regulatory hands of the federal government. Therefore, the degree of control isn't comparable. State GOVERNMENTS control cars, federal GOVERNMENT controls guns. Both are under GOVERNMENT control. *

Ok, to address this. I agree that all citizens should be trained in the use of arms. However, in the first paragraph you put too many restrictions on that. Not everyone can take the subway down to the local militia training center.

They aren't my restrictions. The militia part is in the Constitution. And shouldn't something as potentially dangerous as a gun require a certain degree of responsibility? Should we hand them out at birth, or should someone be of a certain age before they can own one? Should we sell them with dirty water hot dogs, or should vendors be required to fit certain standards? Can a repeat felon own a gun as easily as a nun, or should there be rules for that?

Also, you have not taken into account that a "one size fits all" solution will not work for guns. How can a person on the Upper East Side of Manhatten tell a person who lives in the wilds of Montana that they cannot own a gun without a strict licensing process?

When the guns easily purchased in Montana end up illegally on the streets of NY, killing cops, they should have a much easier time restricting them. In fact, this seems a little discriminatory against people in Montana. Why are they somehow incapable of meeting the same standards as a NYer? Is intelligence and capacity for personal responsibility related to net income? Is it geographic?

Yes, it is geographic. And as far as someone DELIBERATELY BREAKING A LAW TO IMPORT GUNS TO NEW YORK, WHAT GOOD ARE MORE LAWS? In short, mind your own lane, if you dont mind. And since NYers evidently go on killing sprees when it gets a bit hot, I think it would be easy to say they shouldnt be trusted with guns.

The simple fact is that when I have tried to answer you, your only response is derision and accusations of paranoia.

Actually, that's not any kind of fact. The points you chose to ignore generally made no kind of implications about person whatsoever. Apparantly, you're using comments I made in other posts as an excuse to ignore separate content. Whatever.

*edit: actually, both federal and state gov'ts control guns. Personally, I think it should be entirely federal, but it isn't.

[b]I will continue to try to answer you point for point. But I have a feeling that unless I say Why yes, I agree with you totally, you simply are unable of seeing my point of view.[/b]

'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."-James Morrow

anon1mat0 wrote:Still the problem of high number firearm related deaths in the US remains. IMHO something is wrong with guns in the US and unless the number goes down I don't see the people for regulation going away. To me that is the core of the issue, otherwise there wouldn't be ground for disagreement.

Capellini wrote:

anon1mat0 wrote:I have moved to a more libertarian aproach to the matter: Hey! you want to have one, good if it works for you, and if you are so irresponsible to have one of your kids kill himself or someone else with it, I hope you remain the rest of your sorry days in jail.

Except, where is the law that says if your child kills someone with your gun, YOU go to jail? I'd love to see it, but so far . . .

Which is one of the points I've been wanting to make.

What's been stopping you?

True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill

anon1mat0 wrote:Why having a high density of guns compared to the total pupulation, they have far less firearm deaths (I believe that statement applies to Canada as well, may be the canadians can confirm that)?

IIRC, the national homicide rate in Canada is around 1.0-1.5 per 100,000 population, and most of those are with guns (for discussion purposes, it's probably fair to assume that the proportion of gun-related murders to non-gun related murders is constant with Switzerland).

If it's not casually obvious, in North America gun deaths per 10,000 people is proportional to people per square mile, not guns per 10,000 people. I'm going out on a limb and guessing that the average number of guns per household is MUCH lower in cities, but the per capita homicides are much higher.

Also, have a look at the type of homicides... we've been mostly discussing 'criminal stranger' type violence, when the vast majority of the homicides up here are either domestic or gang/drug-sale related between mutually identifiable parties (drug-fix motivated robberies, at least in little ol' Alberta, tend to be liquor store or bank teller robberies, often at knifepoint, and fatalities are rare).

40% of our fatalities in Alberta this year have been domestic.
AFAIK, one of the fatalities this year (in Calgary) was an innocent bystander in a gang shooting.

Compare that to 1997's number of suicides (most recent data I could find): 3681

In other words, we should ban sticks and knives, and make it illegal for a person to be alone by themselves.

Also, I grew up in a small, SAFE community in Canada, with guns in our house, including a (small) handgun in my parent's bedroom. We locked the doors every night, and so did all of our neighbors AFAIK. And took off our shoes indoors...

LibraLabRat wrote:I am trying to remain calm, evidently I am not playing fair by quoting a certain persons own comments.

I am also getting tired of the insinuation that I am somehow a paranoid redneck who wants to kill people for fun.

Why not just spit on me and call me a jack booted thug baby killer while we are at it.

Sorry, but for people who espouse being open minded and intelligent, some people around here dont like it much when you disagree with them and resort to name calling.

No, I don't like it when people lie about what I've said, or attribute beliefs or opinions to me that I don't actually hold. But I bet a lot of people don't like that.

Incidentally, I don't hold a very high opinion of people who have to resort to lying as a debate tactic.

No one has called you a paranoide redneck. You are assuming that's what people mean, and repeatedly refuting it, which has a bit of a Queen Gertrude ring to it.

You keep saying 'Just because I own a gun doesn't mean I'm a paranoid redneck'. Meanwhile, no one said 'gun owners are paranoid rednecks.' Something in YOU is forcing you to feel that way.

As for what makes you lie, that's another story, I'm sure.

True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill